The Nacilbupera Guzzle

Whoever examines with attention the history of the dearths and famines … will find, I believe, that a dearth never has arisen from any combination among the inland dealers in corn, nor from any other cause but a real scarcity, occasioned sometimes perhaps, and in some particular places, by the waste of war, but in by far the greatest number of cases by the fault of the seasons; and that a famine has never arisen from any other cause but the violence of government attempting, by improper means, to remedy the inconveniences of a dearth. (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations IV.5.44)

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Disgust with "Global Warming" & "Climate Change"

We've had it with "Global Warming" and its morphed backup twin "Climate Change." We recommend the next politician or politically correct ad touting the farce of the manmade affair be waterboarded until all lies and hypocrisy are exposed and truth comes out. We are tired of hypocritical politicians like Al Gore who fly around the world and live like kings in huge mansions when--should they actually believe their lying rhetoric--live as vegans (no meat mind you: cows fart and produce methane; of course human flatus should be regulated as well!) in Ghandi-esque shacks riding bicycles or mass transit to get around.

And today, ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar showed their selfsame disgust with the environmental wackos by pulling out of the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). This is significant because both BP and Caterpillar were two of fourteen founding members of USCAP which seeks to reduce 80% of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) by 2050. Nacilbupera praises today's actions by these three corporations and feels Rio Tinto, a company with major local holdings should act quickly to do the same.

December's announcement by Lisa Jackson of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide (she uses the umbrella term "greenhouse gases") which carbon dioxide is the very air we exhale and which is vital for the sustainability of plants is preposterous. Although Nacilbupera is a self-described "Republican Environmentalist" (perhaps better said "Conservationist") who deeply cares about this beautiful God-created planet and the shared stewardship we have for her, we would rather see the EPA abolished and pay down the debt than waste our money trying to regulate carbon dioxide.

Understandably the EPA feels pressure from the abominable 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA ruling, yet the Bush administration was able to find a workable solution without having to regulate carbon dioxide. It took the overreaching Obama administration to regulate the air we exhale. (Yes, Bush. We Miss You!) Obviously in light of Climategate and lies about the Himalayan glaciers melting, emails of false facts, and climatologists having to admit that there hasn't been any global warming since 1995, a revisiting by the Supreme Court is needed on this issue.

In all, we feel that legitimate air quality issues such as we have along the Wasatch Front with our winter inversions--including betimes the nation's worst air--have been hijacked like the Denver balloon boy hoax. Real and immediate health problems are deluged by the global warming zealots floating their empty ideology. We praise Gov. Herbert's announcement of the environmental study in cooperation with the NSF earlier this month, yet worry that disgust with global warming may dampen resolve for action.


Jason The said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nacilbupera said...

Jason The:
Policy of this blog is: "We will censure profanity and unfounded ridicule but encourage the reader to comment notwithstanding disagreement."

We are reposting below your original comment (which we deleted) in full censuring only the offending word:


I can't decide what is more moronic about your post.

That you cite the business notions of oil companies as a reasonable arbiter of how we should be determining energy policy, or that you acknowledge the air quality problems in Utah, then assert they've been hijacked by those concerned about our influence on the climate.

The irony (idiocy?) of your words, of course, is that those hijackers are simply pointing out that, hey, perhaps the same things that lead to Utah's air quality problems -- which are bad for people -- might also be bad for the environment overall.

How dare they?!

Deniers would have so much more credibility if they could form one argument against a responsible response to man's environmental impact that didn't really entirely on ********, and bad logic.